5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Elixhausen.
6.  On 19 November 1993 the applicant’s wife made a claim for spousal maintenance to the Salzburg District Court (Bezirksgericht Salzburg - hereinafter “the District Court”). She also requested the court to make an interim order for provisional maintenance pending the conclusion of the main proceedings. At that time, the applicant had already filed for divorce and had left the marital home.
7.  In his written submissions of 21 December 1993, the applicant accused the presiding judge of bias. On 24 March 1994 the District Court issued an interim order requiring him to pay his wife provisional maintenance. On 8 April 1994 he appealed against that order. The judge in those proceedings was subsequently excluded from the case. His decisions were declared null and void, with the exception of the interim order of 24 March 1994, which was confirmed by the Salzburg Regional Court (Landesgericht Salzburg – hereinafter “the Regional Court”) on 7 July 1995.
8.  On 29 September 1994 the applicant’s wife sought to amend her claim and requested another interim order for provisional maintenance. On 6 July 1995 the District Court issued a fresh interim order awarding her a higher amount of provisional maintenance. On 18 September 1995, after an oral hearing, the court dismissed an appeal by the applicant against that order. However, on 7 July 1997 the Regional Court quashed that decision in part, and on 5 January 1998 the District Court partly allowed the applicant’s appeal.
9.  On an unspecified date in 1997, the presiding judge of the Regional Court was excluded from the case for bias upon a request by the applicant. The replacement judge left the court soon after, and a third judge took over the case.
10.  During an oral hearing on 20 March 1998 the applicant and his wife agreed that he would pay her a specific amount of provisional maintenance until the conclusion of the proceedings. On 6 May 1998 the applicant submitted a request to the District Court to have the proceedings accelerated.
11.  On 28 July 1999 the applicant requested that the hearing scheduled for 30 July 1999 be postponed because of serious health problems. The next hearing was held on 14 October 1999. On 20 August 1999 the District Court granted the applicant and his wife’s divorce and found that the applicant had been largely responsible for the breakdown of the marriage. He appealed. The outcome of these proceedings is unclear.
12.  During an oral hearing on 6 December 1999 the parties agreed to stay the main maintenance proceedings. On 25 May 2000 the applicant requested that they be continued. Between 2000 and 2004, a number of further oral hearings were held. On three occasions, hearings were postponed upon requests by the applicant, mainly for health reasons. The applicant’s wife also requested several postponements.
13.  On 19 December 2001 and on 16 July 2004 the applicant lodged applications to the Regional Court under section 91 of the Courts Act (Gerichts­organisationsgesetz) for an appropriate time-limit to be imposed on the District Court (Fristsetzungsantrag). It appears that his applications were never decided.
14.  During an oral hearing on 8 October 2004 the applicant’s wife sought to amend her claim and requested another interim order for provisional maintenance. On 12 February 2005 the applicant lodged a further application under section 91 of the Courts Act, but it was rejected by the Regional Court on 9 May 2005. On 29 November 2005 another hearing was held. The presiding judge changed twice during that year.
15.  On 28 July 2006, after further oral hearings, the District Court issued an interim order partly awarding the applicant’s wife the provisional maintenance she had requested. On 29 June 2007 the Regional Court partly allowed an appeal by the applicant and decreased the amount of provisional maintenance he had to pay.
16.  On 6 November 2007 the Salzburg District Court ordered the enforcement of interim maintenance arrears for the period October 2004 until October 2007 and of the current claims. On 6 February 2008 the applicant lodged an action challenging the application for enforcement, which was dismissed on 7 June 2010. It appears that the proceedings are still pending before the appellate courts.
17.  After another change of judge in 2008, several further hearings in the maintenance proceedings were held, including on 30 April 2009, 4 June 2009 and 11 March 2010. Between 9 July 2010 and 10 February 2011 the case file was missing. In February 2011 a new judge took over the case. In an oral hearing on 18 April 2011 the applicant and his wife agreed to stay the proceedings. On 29 November 2011 the applicant requested that they be continued.
18.  On 12 October 2011 the applicant applied to have the provisional maintenance order varied. On 18 November 2011 the District Court rejected his application, referring to the fact that the proceedings challenging the enforcement order of 6 November 2007 were still pending. On 21 March 2012 the Regional Court quashed that decision and referred the matter back to the District Court. The next hearing was scheduled for 18 April 2013.
The main maintenance proceedings are still pending at first instance.